Dear Indiana Court of Appeals:

- Thank you for bestowing my work with meaning.  I have been feeling that the efforts I put into this blog had become meaningless.  But since your propaganda filled decision in the Arkeny and Ruse case came down, I know my readers are more than prepared to see your ruse for the deception it is.  They are educated and well versed in the law and facts and prepared for this moment.

- Thank you for ignoring the important fact of American history unearthed by this blog in December 2008 when we exposed that Chester Arthur lied about his parents heritage and that his lie kept the nation from knowing that he was a British subject at the time of his birth.  Your mention of him in Footnote 16 makes it appear as if the nation was aware of Chester Arthur’s dual nationality, but there was not one single reference to this fact in all of American recorded history until that news was broken here.   Your decision gives our work true meaning and depth. For anyone who has come into contact with our reporting thereto knows – whether they support Obama or not – that you have disgraced your robes and oaths by playing fanciful with the facts and portraying that which was hidden from the voters, the media and American history – until we discovered it last year – as if it were known to the public at large the whole time.  Your disgrace is my potential realized.

- Thank you for the motivation you have recharged my soul with.   The issue is not going away.  Instead, it’s destiny awaits in the DC District Court.

Very Truly Yours,

Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney

[Ed.  UPDATE 6:48 PM.  Advanced Indiana broke this story first yesterday.

Also, the Chester Arthur analysis in Footnote 16 reeks.  This Indiana decision is pure evil.  They have rewritten history to make it appear as if the whole world knew Chester Arthur was a British citizen at birth while history records this blog discovered that fact and first published it to the world in December 2008.  Before that time, it was not known.   The propaganda has spread from the press to the courts.]

The Indiana Court of Appeals in the Arkeny and Kruse case has just issued a lame judicial attempt at defining the “natural born citizen” clause.  The errors of fact and law incorporated into the decision serve as a beacon outlining the desperation certain government factions now face.  Obviously, the British birth issue is getting on their nerves and this was clearly an attempt to derail further national discussion on this issue.

The Indiana Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs did not state a claim upon which relief might be granted, but then they went ahead and visited some of the underlying merits of the case in a rather cavalier manner.  Since any appeal of this decision will be dismissed on other procedural grounds, no appellate court will ever review them on this issue.  The upper courts will simply deny the appeal without reaching this aspect.  So they took a crack at stopping this in its tracks.

And they failed miserably.  And  it’s very encouraging.  The arguments presented by the Indiana Court of Appeals are weak.  The facts used by them are also a fantastic attempt at propaganda.  For example:

With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.  The bases of the Plaintiffs‟ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News…

That’s interesting.  Later in the decision they reject this fact.  Amazing.  It appears that the Indiana Appellate Court was not willing to accept that Barack Obama Sr. was the President’s father.  That alone tells you something was rotten in Denmark.  But the legal arguments they proceed upon, particularly their selective quotations from the Minor and Wong Kim Ark cases illustrate a wonderful example of a court acting as one of the advocates.

Their main argument is to state that citizens are only born or naturalized.  That fails to take into account the framers (and other original citizens) who themselves were neither born citizens nor were they naturalized.  So the Court proves itself a bit wonky on that point.  Still, I certainly do not dispute that today all US citizens are either born or naturalized.  But that’s not the point.  The necessary evaluation requires consideration of the various types of born citizenship.  And on this important issue, the Indiana Court of Appeals has failed.

Born citizens can be broken up into three groups:

1.  natural born

2. citizens by statute

3. 14th amendment citizens

- All three classes were born as US citizens, but not all three are the same.  Persons born abroad are citizens by federal statute.

- A person born on US soil to alien parents who were domiciled here, according to Wong Kim Ark, is a 14th Amendment citizen.

- Natural born citizens are born on US soil to parents who are citizens.

All of the above are citizens, but each reaches their citizenship through different circumstances.

To be “natural born” is a circumstance of citizenship.   It is not a separate level of citizenship.  All citizens have equal rights.  But naturalized citizens aren’t eligible for the office of President.  This is because the natural born citizen clause is a national security measure, not a right of citizenship.  The Indiana Court conveniently ignores this point.

Born citizens are  not necessarily bestowed with citizenship in the same way.  Some require a statute.  Some require the 14th Amendment.  Some were natural born and their citizenship was self-evident.

The Indiana court also pointed to dicta in a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals case which labeled two children of an illegal alien as natural born.  That case stated:

The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.

But nothing about the issue was discussed.  The children were mentioned in passing dicta. Whether the children were natural born was not an issue in that case.   And it was a  mistake for the court to say they were natural born.

The Indiana Court of Appeals acknowledges that the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark did not hold that the man was a natural born citizen.  Essentially, the Indiana court acknowledges that the US Supreme Court exercised judicial restraint, but the Indiana Court of Appeals here doesn’t feel that they are restrained in that regard.  How brave of them.

Furthermore, the Indiana Court chose to ignore the most relevant aspect of Wong Kim Ark where the SCOTUS clearly indicated that Wong Kim Ark was not natural born:

Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.  His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’

That tells you right there that the child of the citizen and the child of the alien are not both natural born.

“…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:

-  he compares two children

- on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien

- on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen

He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.

He says that both are citizens.  But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to.  So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.

The Court does not say that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.

The Indiana Court conveniently ignored this analysis.  And that comes as no surprise to me.  They had to ignore it because there was no possible way for them to distinguish it.

Leo C. Donofrio

After various responses from the DoH giving unclear answers to UIPA requests which exclusively pertained to birth documents for Obama dating back to August 1961 – specifically documents which caused his birth to have been “Filed by Registrar August 8, 1961″ – I requested assistance from the OIP.  Their interpretation of the DoH response was that of a denial of access.  But the OIP also issued guidance as to how I could properly refine my request.

I took the OIP advice and issued a 6th UIPA request asking for the same documents and limiting any possible wiggle room.

And to this request I recently received  a clear denial of access from the DoH by way of an official OIP form.  I also received clear response forms from the DoH as to my previous UIPA requests.

The form I received is the same posted at the OIP web site.  The box which says “denied in its entirety” was checked.

SIGNIFICANCE

Prior on target UIPA requests by other researchers had more than one box checked.  The denied box was checked and other boxes were checked which could also mean that the DoH did not maintain the record.  That policy – at least for my UIPA requests – has now changed as the DoH only checked the “DENIED IN ITS ENTIRETY” box.

According to OIP administrative rules and guidance from OIP staff attorney Linden Joesting (originally provided to Terri K), the denial of access box can only be checked when the agency does in fact maintain the requested record.

I requested birth records for President Obama – maintained by the DoH – dated from August 1961.  I was only concerned with documents which came into existence no later than August 10th 1961.  The DoH has replied by denying access to those records.

This is a clear statutory admission that they possess records pertaining to President Obama’s birth which came into existence back in August 1961.

And this is the first clear admission that such birth records exist and are currently maintained by the DoH.

NEXT PHASE

The next phase will be to appeal the DoH decision not to release these documents.  The law in Hawaii supports such release since both Obama and the DoH have waived privacy protections to those portions of the records which have already been made public.  According to precedent in Hawaii, such vital records should be released with any information which has not been previously made public redacted.

Developing…

Leo C. Donofrio

I was impressed with the integrity of Judge Carter’s ruling today.  It gives me hope that the POTUS eligibility issue will eventually have its day in court on the merits.

POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE.

Congress is the branch the Constitution empowers to remove a sitting President.  The power to judicially enforce any review of POTUS eligibility is a pre-requisite to judicial involvement as the federal courts do not have the power to issue simple advisory opinions.  A declaratory judgment is more than an advisory opinion.  This is because a declaratory judgment must have the power of enforcement attached whereas an advisory opinion does not.

The declaratory judgment requests of plaintiffs in the Barnett case had to be dismissed because the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.  It’s really that simple.  Judge Carter’s analysis of this issue was perfect.

QUO WARRANTO

Because a quo warranto is the only proper action to review the eligibility of a sitting President – and because such an action requires a trial of facts -  Congress empowered the DC District Court to hold such a trial (by jury if requested by either party) when the eligibility of the President (or any US national office holder) is called into question.

There is no political question doctrine defense available to a sitting President for a quo warranto brought in the DC District Court.  This is because Congress properly exercised its Constitutional authority to review a President’s eligibility via the quo warranto statute which also provides for the removal of an ineligible person from that office if necessary.

The US Attorney General and the US attorney have been empowered by Congress to institute a quo warranto on their own volition.  Furthermore, any person may request that these officers do the same.  If consent is not given by the DOJ, section 3503 of the quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to petition the DC District Court on its own.  The Barnett plaintiffs failed to avail themselves of this option.

Additionally, the Department of Justice has created a genuine conflict of interest as to 3502 requests by any “third person” (meaning any citizen).  By defending the President in this eligibility litigation involving quo warranto, it isn’t possible for the Department of Justice to remain impartial.

Therefore, either a special prosecutor must be named for purposes of allowing the Congressional intent of the quo warranto statute to be realized, or the DC District Court may waive the requirement and examine any verified petition on its own consent.

The conflict will eventually be tested in the DC District Court.

Meanwhile, it’s important for me to point out that everything I have told readers of this blog about quo warranto was confirmed by Judge Carter today.

JUDGE CARTER DID NOT HOLD THAT QUO WARRANTO WAS IMPROPER TO CHALLENGE THE ELIGIBILITY OF A SITTING PRESIDENT.

This was the most extraordinary part of today’s ruling.  It opens the door wide for a proper eligibility challenge in the DC District Court where the hurdle for standing is different from ordinary federal cases.

Please take note that the Department of Justice attorneys argued before Judge Carter that quo warranto – even if brought properly in the DC District Court – could not be used to challenge the eligibility of a sitting President.  Judge Carter’s ruling did not support the Department of Justice position.

The ruling today affirms that the proper venue for challenging the eligibility of a sitting President is the DC District Court.

This is a very encouraging ruling for those contemplating a quo warranto challenge to President Obama’s eligibility in the DC District Court.

THE ONLY SIGNIFICANT ERROR

The only part of today’s ruling I take issue with is footnote 3 on page 22 where Judge Carter assumes that since Congress has the Constitutional authority to enact legislation regarding naturalization and citizenship by statute that they also have the power to define the meaning of  “natural born citizen”.

But Congress has not defined “natural born citizen” while they have defined “naturalized citizen” and “citizen by statute”.  Since neither the Congress nor the courts have defined “natural born citizen”, we are left without a legal working definition.

Faced with a sitting President who admits to having been a British citizen at birth, the need for a quo warranto to be instituted is of the utmost importance to the future of this nation.

Here is Judge Carter’s correct ruling on the quo warranto issue:

C. Quo Warranto Claims…

The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503.  Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.

Nothing in today’s ruling appears to question the power of the DC District Court to issue a writ of quo warranto to President Obama which would require him to prove his eligibility to hold the office of President.  I must commend Judge Carter for his exercise of judicial restraint on this issue.

I am speaking with various parties who I may provide legal counsel to in the near future.  This will require a period of silence from me.  The time for legal talk is now over.  The time for legal action has begun.  Talk is cheap.  I’m tired of it.  Either litigation will commence or you won’t hear from me again via this blog.

This blog contains all the tools necessary for people to gain access to information from Hawaii.  The UIPA is a very good law providing standing and expedited calendar service to “any person”.  Study that law and use it.  Request the media and legislature use it as well.  They won’t.  You know that.  But put it in their face anyway.

I will report back here when I have something of significance to say regarding litigation.

For now, I will leave you with one salient point made by the DOJ in the hearing before Judge Carter:

“It’s the way the founding fathers intended.”

Page 15 of the transcript.

Since the DOJ is stipulating that the intention of the founding fathers is the proper guideline for this issue, then we ought to hold them to that position all the way down the line.  The definition of “natural born citizen” as understood by the founding fathers is certainly the only definition which is legal under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.  Barney Frank can’t change that and neither can law professors like Tribe and Dershowitz, etc.

As the DOJ has correctly indicated, the only definition of natural born citizen that matters is the one held by the founding fathers.

And that’s why everyone needs to read pages 43-44 of the transcript where Judge Carter indicates that even if Obama were born in Kenya, the Judge would not be comfortable in holding that Obama was not eligible to be POTUS.

Somebody needs to tell this Judge that the law in the US at the time of Obama’s birth stated quite clearly that Obama would not have qualified for US citizenship in 1961 if born in Kenya to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama Sr.  That’s very clear according federal law in 1961.  If he wasn’t a citizen, how could he be a “natural born citizen”?

So, if you think Judge Carter is going to decide the British birth issue in favor of holding Obama ineligible if born in Hawaii, then you are really kidding yourselves.  This case has no chance at all.

I don’t believe Obama was born in Kenya.  I believe he was born in Hawaii.  But I also believe that the state of Hawaii has been playing fast and loose with their own public disclosure laws and that they should not be trusted, especially since they haven’t been put under oath.

I also don’t believe it would have mattered to the founding fathers if Obama was born in Hawaii since he was a British citizen at birth, and the founding fathers had just fought a bloody war to rid themselves of British influence.  To assume they would have allowed a British citizen at birth to become Commander In Chief of the US armed forces is to disgrace the blood of the patriots who earned this nation’s freedoms and liberties by their very lives.

For all intents and purposes, the “natural born citizen” safeguard given to this nation by the founding fathers is dead.  And the entire Constitution is also dying by a cancer attacking all organs.  It will only survive a certain death by miracle.  Pray for such a miracle.  It is truly your only hope.

Leo C. Donofrio

Comments are now closed.

I’ve deleted my prior post so that the journal mentioned might reverse course now that I’ve made my point: that information is available from Hawaii for those who will call Hawaii to follow their own public disclosure laws.

No news journal can talk about this issue and deserve any respect if they aren’t willing to use the law available to them for research.  Research is to the media just as a hammer is to a carpenter – a necessary tool.  We shall now see if they are interested in doing their job or if they will continue to dodge that chore.

The 2004 article from Kenya’s oldest newspaper – The Standard – featured the headline which stated :

Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate

And the blogosphere went into hyper overdrive.  The first line of defense was that it was a fraud, and the second line of defense was to simply ignore the story.  As of today – according to the Google news search engine – not one main stream newspaper is reporting this story other than blogger Don Surber at The Daily Mail in the UK in Charleston, West Virginia.  And he has apparently debunked the first line of defense, stating:

I checked.

Apparently that is a true image from the June 24, 2004, Standard, which is Kenya’s oldest newspaper.

Then Surber goes on to argue that just because the report appeared in 2004, that doesn’t mean it’s true.  However, what Surber and most of the blogosphere have failed to comprehend is that President Obama has admitted the headline is true.

It is undisputed that Obama was Kenyan-born by the blood of his father.  That led to his Kenyan citizenship having been automatically granted in 1963 by the Kenya Independence Act.

JUS SANGUINIS

The legal concept by which it is undisputed that President Obama was “Kenyan-born” is “jus sanguinis“, which means “right of blood”.

Furthermore, President Obama admitted that, under the British Nationality Act of 1948 – at the time of his birth – he was a British citizen.  It has also been accurately reported by Factcheck.org that President Obama became a Kenyan citizen in 1963.  (However, a separate key aspect of that report was false and eventually corrected by Factcheck who cited this blog’s report and analysis in their mea culpa.  Please also note their second mea culpa to this blog.)

JUS SOLI

Unfortunately, the undisputed legal fact of Obama’s jus sanguinis foreign birth has been supplanted by the sensational conspiracy theory relating to the place of his birth.  The headline from the 2004 Kenyan news report does not indicate whether “Kenyan-born” relates to Obama’s  Kenyan bloodline or – in the alternative – to his place of birth.  Place of birth citizenship is conferred by a legal concept known as “jus soli“, meaning law of the soil.

Please don’t miss the forest for the trees.  President Obama admits to having been a British citizen at birth by law and a son of Kenyan blood which led to automatic Kenyan citizenship in 1963.  This alone should disqualify him from POTUS eligibility – regardless of where he was born – since he was a dual citizen at birth and at least until 1984.

Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen.

This is an attribute only available at birth.

Whether a person (who admits having been) born subject to the laws of a foreign power can become Commander In Chief of the US armed forces is a genuine and necessary question of law, not a conspiracy theory.

US v. WONG KIM ARK

The leading citizenship case issued by the US Supreme Court – US v. Wong Kim Ark – stated the following:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here… if he hath issue here… his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’

Both hypothetical children discussed in the passage above are US citizens and both hold equal rights.  But the majority opinion makes it quite clear that only one child is “natural born” – the child of the citizen.  The court compared the native born child of an alien to the “natural born” child of a citizen, and in doing so made clear that – while both are citizens -  the circumstances of their US citizenship are not the same.

One child’s citizenship is “natural born” and the other child’s citizenship required the 14th amendment.  And therefore, it’s very important to note that the majority in Wong Kim Ark also stated that the definition of “natural born citizen” is not found in the Constitution.  If 14th amendment citizenship defined the meaning of “natural born citizen”, then the Court could not have made that statement.

POTUS REQUIREMENTS ARE NATIONAL SECURITY MEASURES.

The Constitutional requirements to be POTUS are not rights, they are national security measures.  Even natural born citizens who fail to meet the other requirements cannot be President.  For example, a 33-year-old natural born citizen cannot be President.  But 35-year-old men have no more rights than 33-year-old men.  Understand?  Requirements are not rights.

If Obama is eligible to be President then so are the sons of Osama Bin Laden, Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if they impregnate an American woman who gives birth on US soil.  The very notion is obscene.  Such a person might be a US citizen under current policy, but their citizenship is not natural born and they cannot be President and Commander In Chief of the US armed forces.

Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney  http://naturalborncitizen.worpdress.com

October 16, 2009

____________________________________________________

COMMENTS ARE MODERATED.  FEEL FREE TO COMMENT WITH NO EXPECTATION YOUR COMMENT WILL APPEAR.

Since federal case law pertaining to the writ of quo warranto is so scarce, research on the issue is rather simple.  This is why I am shocked and confused as to why the DOJ did not cite the case UNITED STATES of America ex rel. STATE OF WISCONSIN v. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION.  I recenly explained the strict holding in the case – that no US District Court other than the DC District Court may entertain a quo warranto proceeding.

The deception is circling on all fronts.  Decepticons are busy issuing defective legal analysis alleging that there is a private right to bring quo warranto against a United States national office holder.  I can tell you with certainty that there is no such right now, and there was none at the common law.  But don’t take my word for it.  Instead, review the following passages from the leading United States Supreme Court decision pertaining to quo warranto: NEWMAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. WILLIAM J. FRIZZELL:

Usurpation of a public office from an early day was treated as a crime, and, like all other crimes, could be prosecuted only in the name of the King by his duly authorized law officers. When a judgment was obtained against the intruder he was not only ousted from his office, but fined for his criminal usurpation.  A private citizen could no more prosecute such a proceeding in his own name than he could in his own name prosecute for the crime of murder… (Emphasis added.)

There was never a private right to bring quo warranto.  It was always brought in the name of the government.  This is further illustrated by the SCOTUS as follows:

In 1902 Congress adopted a District Code, containing a chapter on quo warranto which though modeled after the English statute, differed therefrom in several material particulars. The writ was treated as a civil remedy; it was not limited to proceedings against municipal officers, but to all persons who in the District exercised any office, civil or military. It was made available to test the right to exercise a public franchise, or to hold an office in a private corporation.  Instead of providing that ‘any person desiring to prosecute‘ might do so with the consent of the court, certain restrictions were imposed and one enlargement of the right was made. These provisions2 have never received judicial interpretation. This case must, therefore, be determined according to the special language of that Code, in the light of general principles applicable to quo warranto,—the prerogative writ by which the government can call upon any person to show by what warrant he holds a public office or exercises a public franchise. (Emphasis added.)

While all of the above sets the stage, the following establishes definitive precedent by the SCOTUS on this issue:

The District Code still treats usurpation of office as a public wrong which can be corrected only by proceeding in the name of the government itself. (Emphasis added.)

And the following is the policy behind the restriction:

But there are so many reasons of public policy against permitting a public officer to be harassed with litigation over his right to hold office, that the Code not only does not authorize a private citizen, on his own motion, to attack the incumbent’s title, but it throws obstacles in the way of all such private attacks.  It recognizes, however, that there might be instances in which it would be proper to allow such proceedings to be instituted by a third person, but it provides that such ‘third person’ must not only secure the consent of the law officers of the government, but the consent of the supreme court of the District of Columbia, before he can use the name of the government in quo warranto proceedings. (Emphasis added.)

Beware of false sentinels.

Get ready, you are going to be hearing much more about the writ of quo warranto in the days and weeks ahead.

Leo C. Donofrio  Citizen Attorney  http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

Copyright 2009

[UPDATE: 9:51 PM Please see my response to the following comment .]

The miraculous inner strength and will to live is so strong with some babies that even despite attempts to abort them, they survive – born into the world, umbilical cord cut… breathing on their own.  Only a few years ago, these children could be left to die – murdered after birth.  The President opposed legislation that would protect their lives.

Obama -  who today won the Nobel Peace Prize – while a Senator in Chicago, blocked the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.  The Act eventually passed in Illinois despite Obama’s opposition.  Please read the full report on this at Citizenlink.  Here is an excerpt:

“One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down’s syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him.  I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived.  He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about ½ pound, and was about 10 inches long.  He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe.  Toward the end, he was so quiet that I couldn’t tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall.  After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken…”

Obama opposed Born Alive in committee, but voted “present” — neither “yes” nor “no,” but merely “present” — on the state Senate floor…

“What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can’t support that,” Obama concluded, and voted “no” in committee again.

The bill went again to the Senate floor, where Obama was the sole speaker against it, claiming that it would impose a “burden” on physicians:

“[T]his [legislation] puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they are performing this procedure, that in fact, this is a nonviable fetus.”

Even though the child lives and breathes on its own, Obama advocated murdering the child.  This is what we have come to, America.  This is the shining face of dear leader.  Where was the so called main stream media on this one?  Why haven’t I heard about this before?  Have you?

PROGRESSIVE EUGENICS – PLEASE INVESTIGATE

Then take a look again at my report on Justice Ginsburg’s comments wherein she stated:

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.“

This sick twisted comment was not even challenged by the New York Times reporter who it was offered to.  What populations doesn’t Ginsburg want “too many of”?  Sounds like a Nazi master race angle to me.

I wouldn’t wipe my behind with the Nobel Peace Prize now that Obama the infanticide supporter has been graced with it.  The award has been disgraced and exposed as a propaganda device for dear leader.

FORCED ABORTIONS AND MASS STERILIZATION

I was recently made aware of Obama science czar John Holdren’s insatiable desire to force certain women to have abortions against their will.  This is the same man who advocates mass sterilization.

So much for a woman’s right to choose.

Obama’s zombiecore freakshow vampire brigade must leave Washington DC in shame.

Leo Donofrio, Citizen Attorney  http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com